Prefatory note of the Head of Soropositivo.Org Editor:
Although it seems out of scope within the site context, it is necessary to note two important aspects:
- People with disabilities are vulnerable to infection with HIV (In 15 years of work on this site I have never seen a single campaign that motivates the practice of safer sex for people with disabilities, whether physical or sensory;
- People with HIV may, in line with the very diverse evolution of HIV infection and / or manifestations of AIDS, become disabled.
Living proof of this is my person, who has been victimized by a vicious disabling process because of a peripheral neuropathy, which has struck me in a more vigorous way, giving me regretful news about possible futures and, on the other hand, an almost infinite exacerbation of my dyslexia, which implies in an increasing number of revisions that, in the end, prove to be relatively useless, since they always escape typing errors or spelling and / or grammar that I consider to be unforgivable for a person who proposes to what I propose (...) without recourse to social security for more than half a decade (living as God provides).
The original news comes from The Guardian, a British newspaper. This puts us relatively out of the question, because it deals with British legislation, and yet it gives us news of advances that they have obtained with which we have not even dreamed, and sets us up against negative injunctions that can always arise, translated and edited, for our still incipient society, prolific in injustices and even cowardice ... Any resemblance to our (im) Social Security is not a mere coincidence, it is a systematic way of reallocating resources to the governmental coffers of their respective countries in a dirty way filthy) to get money and "round up public accounts ...
CSS No social security benefit since December of 2009 ...
We are concerned with the current and projected impacts on people with disabilities in the changes in support of employment and support allowance for people with disabilities; outstanding issues with the assessment of work capacities; the reduction of local authority regarding expenses; the substitution of the subsidy to social assistance for the incapacity of personal autonomy; the closure of life and the reduction of housing subsidies (Report(10 May).
These changes are having a negative impact on the lives of people with disabilities and their companions, and are likely to undermine or remove control and choice of home, work, and community life as autonomous choices of the disabled person.
We fear that the changes will prove to be setbacks, and that they may raise barriers to
community life and announce the return of a situation of reducing the assistance of the disabled person to something like what would be defined by supporting the subculture (sic) "is an animal and clean it only."
We welcome the publication of the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) 23.◦ report The application of the right of persons with disabilities to independent living, in which it calls on the government to publish an assessment of the impact and cumulative effects on people with disabilities of the ongoing reforms.
The JCHR considers this to be an essential issue, given the legal responsibilities of the government, as one of the signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).
There must be a commitment to the progressive realization of the UNCRPD's resilient rights, devoid of the current "economic climate" that can not, even in the most perfidious or insidious hypothesis, lead to setbacks of hard-won gains over more than one century of dialogues, and bitter struggles.
We hope that the government's response to the report, which is expected to come up to 21 in May of 2015, necessarily includes a commitment to globally assess the cumulative impact of all the above reforms on people with disabilities.
Failure to do so raises the question of whether the government is fulfilling its obligations under international law.
Beat the onions (Rio de Janeiro, South Lanarkshire) and more 36.500 signatures for the petition in, http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/20968
Jane, a consultant on the rights of young people with disabilities and activist, wearespartacus.org.uk
Linda Burnip Member of management, DPAC group and Professor Peter Beresford , Shape our lives
Dr. Simon Duffy Director, Reform Centre of Social Security
Richard Hawkes chief executive,
Mark Goldring Chief Executive Officer, Mencap Steve Ford , Parkinson's disease UK
Rosemary O'Neill, Frances Kelly CarerWatch rights of persons with disabilities Kaliya Franklin Claire Glasman writer and activist WinVisible
Steve griffiths research and consultancy in social and health policy
Peter Spencer Executive Director, the ME action Paul Jenkins chief executive, rethinking mental health Dr. Ben Baumberg Professor of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Kent
Dr Sarah Woodin Professor of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds
Nick Rijke Director of policy and research, MS Society Dan Morton Social Workers Action Network
Caroline Richardson Ouchtoo.org
Norman Curran Values in action in Scotland, the Scottish Campaign for a Just Society
Sam Barnett-Cormack, Simon Barrow Ekklesia
Teresa Catto-Smith, Carole Rutherford Act now for Autism
Steven Rose wheelchair, Campaign for a Just Society
Clifford singer, false economy
Pippa mackie Executive Director, Kingston-upon-Thames Kashmir CABIN Access Auditor,
NRAC Karen Machin St Helens, Merseyside
- Iain Duncan Smith is of the view that people with long-term disability with "insurance premiums as being" susceptible to something like a philosophy that would explain itself as: "allowed to suppurate" the risks, (note of the translator: although I have searched in three dictionaries of Babylon® and Word® for something that would allow me to replace this word and give I could not find anything that would do it, and the best sense found, as in the image shown, to forgive the debt and, I firmly believe, this means that the hypocritical policy of the British Government transfers to the people defined with " long-term deficit "by potential" partner "(sic) of the government, strong enough) to forgive debts. It is PQP) fueling the increase in verbal abuse on people with disabilities, reinforced by an implicit fraudulent increase of 6% of 30 people with disabilities at £ 500.000 billion (GBP ₤ $ 2.24 = $ 1,00 - source: http://librahoje.com/) that we do not deserve any benefits (Disability benefits torn, opens on another website, window and in British English 14 MAY). DWP has fraudulent benefits in 0,5%. This kind of propaganda does not hold up easily, done the math.
The public needs to understand that most people really need this benefit, to help many keep work supported by the 41,10 combined low-level DLA. This is a pro-autonomy benefit, keeping people independent of (more expensive) services.
People with low DLA are also affected by most cuts from local councils and are no longer eligible for social support. (Editor's note: We would have to give a detailed description of the parliamentary English political system and its various nuances ... In short, it is only the slow, corrupted slug from here with a decorative figure which is the Royal family, a species of undefeatable parasitosis)
Without DLA, many of the people with disabilities with lower wages may be able to continue working. Taking into account the national minimum living standards and salaries (£ 243,20 and £ 288 per week - Translator's note, swapping kids the minimum standard of British life circulates around R $ 4.800,00), how can Iain Duncan Smith justify this withdrawal or £ 71,45? People with long-term disability can not work, and how will they live without receiving £ 71 or £ 53,45 (for people under 25 years) per week?
Can each of us, without any deficiency, manage expenses with a loss of this volume?
Many tend to lose their independence with this escalation of cuts that need to force them to go, periodically, to the local support authority.
Steven Rose Campaign for a Fair Society
- looks like Iain duncan smith was chosen as the most unproductive way of dealing with people with disabilities. Forcing people with disabilities and people with chronic diseases to participate in the fascist style of the evaluation centers, which does nothing to improve the public perception of their government.
Not the best way to deal with this problem. As evaluation centers are now scattered around the country, why not use these resources more productively?
At the moment, the system is to throw money on the street in a cycle of valuations and useless resources.
- These centers could be used, instead, to provide aconselhamento especializado e apoio a pessoas com deficiência, a fim de que eles possam voltar ao trabalho. Eles poderiam também ser um local onde os potenciais empregadores poderiam anunciar oportunidades de emprego especificamente para os trabalhadores com deficiência.Dr S Barlow Bristol
- Polly Toynbee describes government failures (Comment, May Day 15), includingwithdrawal of the disability allowance. At a recent conference of people working on volunteerism, a woman with severe disability said. She said she was able to do a limited amount of volunteer work for her credit union - a couple of hours a day - that had therapeutic benefits. The DWP's response was:
"If you are able to volunteer for eight hours a week, you can get paid work for eight hours a week."
She lost her DLA because she had volunteered with her credit union.
The irony is that volunteering, the so-called "great social actor," was the chief of Conservative policy in his 2010 manifesto. Gerald demonstrated by Sandison Vila Nova de Poiares, Bedfordshire
Translated and adapted from the original The human cost of disability cuts by Claudio Santos de Souza at 06 / 06 / 2015. Hire me for translations from English to Portuguese and help me keep this site up in the air with dignity via email seropositivowebsite [@] gmail.com